Just a few random thoughts from Ryan Lizza’s TNR article last year. I found this article fascinating. She has quite an organization, one seems almost impervious to the dangers of attacks by the left or the right. They appear to have planned for all eventualities.
I have so many mixed feelings about her. On the one hand I realize we had 8 good years with them in the White House, but on the other I have learned so much since that gives me pause.
Hillaryland…that is really the name.
Hillaryland…Guide to the Clinton Juggernaut
Not going to post stuff in order, but in order of fascination to me. First off, Mark Penn, her pollster. I don’t like him at all. He and his company have meddled too much in polling in other countries. Now I would never imply they might meddle here…
Well, I found out that Dick Morris brought him into the tightly knit group…amazing, huh?
When Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes, Mandy Grunwald, and Mark Penn were thrown together six years ago, there was no reason to predict they would produce a twelve-point victory for Hillary in New York. Wolfson, the communications czar, had no previous experience in Hillaryland, but, as a local, he was liked–or at least feared–by the New York press. Ickes, the expert on New York state politics, had been unceremoniously dumped by Bill Clinton at the moment he thought he was going to be promoted to chief of staff (he read about it in the newspaper). Grunwald, the ad-maker and a 1992 campaign alum–that’s her voice yelling out of the speakerphone at James Carville in The War Room–was kicked out in 1995 to make room for the new team, which included none other than pollster Mark Penn. Penn, in turn, was brought in by Dick Morris, a man that Ickes has hated–“He’s a sleazy son of a bitch,” he has said–for about 25 years, ever since they tangled in the politics of the Upper West Side.
Some more about Penn, whom I just don’t like.
Ever since then, Penn has been the messaging mastermind of Hillaryland. His stubborn centrism, arrived at by sifting through tons of granular-level psychographic polling–that is, psychological and demographic–has long angered liberals, and it is likely be the greatest source of future tension in Hillaryland. “We kind of know what Mark is going to say in every situation,” says one top adviser to his left. But there is little doubt that Hillary is a true devotee of Penn–who is also a Tony Blair adviser and partisan of the transatlantic Third Way project–and his middle-of-the-road style of politics.
And back to the beginning of the fairly long article for some background the power of the group.
Today, Hillaryland is a vast political empire based in Washington and New York that, in its scale and ambition, is unrivaled in Democratic politics. But the spirit of Hillaryland, as well as many of its leaders, remains the same. Alan Patricof, Hillary’s Senate campaign finance chair, who has been raising money for the Clintons for two decades, says, “She’s got a very loyal group of people around her who have supported her for a long time.” In fact, everyone in Hillaryland says that. They prefer to compare Hillary’s operational style to George W. Bush’s rather than Bill’s. The unspoken, and sometimes spoken, premise is that, unlike her husband’s White House team–not to mention the last two Democratic presidential campaigns–there are no mercenaries in Hillaryland, only true believers, a culture they say is hardening now that many Democratic sharks are circling Hillaryland, looking for a way in.
And now to the Ins and the Outs of Hillaryland.
In Hillaryland, you’re either in or you’re out. Bill Clinton famously agonized over pushing aides from his inner circle. He cried and apologized the day his fired press secretary Dee Dee Myers left the White House. After the 1994 elections, he dawdled and couldn’t bring himself to get rid of several advisers who were left wondering about their status, even as he began to rely on their replacements. In contrast, Hillary’s team likes bright lines, and one way they maintain them is by firmly establishing an in-crowd. Joe Lockhart, the White House press secretary and face of the Clinton administration for two and a half years? Out. (They suspect he’s a John Edwards man, though an Edwards aide says he isn’t.) James Carville? In. (He’s personally close to Hillary and speaks to her regularly.) Doug Sosnik, one of Bill Clinton’s senior strategists in the late ’90s? Out. (He’s advising former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.) John Podesta, Clinton’s last chief of staff and now the president of the Center for American Progress? Way in. (He has important links to labor and environmental groups and serves as a policy conduit to Hillary.) Leon Panetta, Clinton’s second chief of staff? Far out. (He clashed with Hillary and tried to keep Hillaryland at arm’s length from the West Wing.) But trying to determine who’s in and out is nothing compared with figuring out who’s influential and who’s not. That search takes you deep into Hillaryland.
I would love to know which “In person” told Hillary to suggest that if we disapproved of the way she spoke of her Iraq War vote, there were others to vote for. I am considering taking her up on that, at least in the primaries.
There’s an interview with Jeffrey St. Clair today in Counterpunch in which St. Clair says that Bill Clinton paved the way for Bush:
Alexander, thanks for the link…love counterpunch, don’t check in there often enough.
Chocolate Ink, one of the things I like about BT is that one can post links to Counterpunch without getting replies smearing it, as usually happens at the orange place.
It infuriates me when sites like dKos or Huffington Post are referred to as “the left”, by the way. Those are liberal sites; Counterpunch is left-wing. Most Americans can’t even conceptualize what the left stands for any more.
I never go to Kos…so why is counterpunch smeared there? I always find the articles informative.
You’re certainly right about what liberal or being a lefty means nowadays. I always thought my beliefs common sense and simply right..you know basic equality and so on but other people have labeled me as very radical.
The main reason Counterpunch gets smeared at dKos is that it regularly posts pieces critical of Israel. So the smearing is part of the Israel lobby practice of trying to stop such criticism getting out into the open.
I go to dKos out of curiosity about how current events are being discussd there, since I used to spend a lot of time there. But my visits are very brief, and I don’t bother looking at the comments any more.
Counterpunch definitely used to have a kind of “subsversive” reputation, so that it was risky to mention in polite company that you read it, because of the alleged taint of anti-Semitism. But I think that has changed since the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon. That’s definitely progress in American politics, however small.
It’s funny that (sound) common sense is viewed as “radical” nowadays. I think that that’s the consequence of neoliberalism having infused itself into most middle-class people’s minds without their having even noticed it, as a result of the continuous propaganda efforts of the corporate media.
Funny that you mentioned Israel as that is one reason I do read counterpunch. To finally find a place where you can get the other side of story concerning Israel and Palestine. It continues to be unbelievable to me that if you simply want to have see both sides of this terrible mess you’re considered anti-Semitic. Just look what happened to Carter.
The media does have a lot to do with the perception of what is liberal after all many people still think Hillary is some wild eyed radical whack job..what a sorry state of affairs and proves propaganda really works.
Floridagal, thanks for this illuminating diary. Clearly, if Hillary kept all these people on, she always intended to run for president.
I had actually had a better opinion of Hillary than I do now: I had expected her to be smart enough, and to have a high enough regard for the welfare of the American people, to know that running for president would be a very bad idea indeed. (Not that I like someone from Chicago and Arkansas representing New York, which is where I grew up.)
I’m also taking her up on her invitation to vote for others. I’ve already decided that there is no way I would vote for her in a general election.
It’s not just her pro-war vote. If you read that Counterpunch piece I linked to above, you’ll see that the Clintons have more in common with the Bushies than they do with us at BT.
Wow. Sounds like her campaign is going to be a veritable who’s who of everyone I dislike in the Democratic Party.
You know who she’s really starting to remind me of?
Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher rose through party ranks through her own ability and efforts. Hillary in contrast owes her prominence to her marriage.
Hillary reminds me more of Lady Macbeth:
Today, Hillary and Obama went at it. Hillary lost a big donor, David Geffen of Dreamworks to Obama and she’s smarting.
Go read Hillary Obama trade barbs over money. N.Y. senator’s camp wants donation returned after booster’s ‘vicious attack’
Hillary had better learn that a war chest of $$$$ and high flying consultants do not guarantee your campaign won’t implode.
Hillary’s campaign will collapse…I can’t write it often enough. It’s become my theme song…and that AP report is encouraging. Oh girl your spurs are showing -and they’re not very attractive.
Talk about being thin skinned…this is politics not a tea party. Sounds more like real sour grapes to me that Geffen will no longer be raising the big bucks for her. This makes her look rather mean and petty. To me this seems the absolute wrong way to handle this little dustup.
I think he is the one who delivered the blast against Geffen today and demanded Obama fire him, and Obama blasted back. I did not think that was a good way Wolfson to handle it.
Well this is the advisor Hillary “loaned” to Ned Lamont right after the primary, big photo op and all. Lamont immediately took a low profile and Lieberman had time to get his act together. I wonder wonder wonder if Wolfson advised that. I know Swanny would not have. Old time politics…
Yes, here is what Wolfson said today..found it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253482,00.html
Since this is yet another diary on the Democratic Primary, I will post this comment.
Best comment I read on Barack Obama yet. Regarding what Obama would have said if he chose not to blow off unions in Nevada and actually attended the AFSCME event, one poster wrote the following:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/200…e; showrate=1#26
“If he had showed up, he probably would have endorsed hope. Maybe take a shot at cynacism. Boldly criticize “old politics” while taking a shot at the Clinton campaign financing in 1995.
But he chose not to come.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!